• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

CP-140 Aurora

Loachman said:
And CDN Aviator is.

So are those involved in the/any Aurora replacement project.

Look i am new to the site. I am nit here offend people.

But i do think that a more balance approach to the purchase of equipment needs to be done.

Look how many times procurement project end up a mess because of politics and inflexibility and failure of getting the need information out to Canadians of all people involved in the system.

The people in Canada are already tight fist-ed in defense spending the past has shown this.

When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs confuse the people.

I just want to know why the P-8 is the only one because someone said so. I also the same to the CRJ plane to.

I think a test plane would be a good ideas.

If it work fine.

If it does not work fine.

In the end we two plane that can be used to testing different systems and some answers with hard proof for the general public see and understand options out there.

I hope this help what i am trying to understand on the whole issue?     
 
WPA said:
When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs confuse the people.

What countries ?

What were their requirements ? What missions did they assign to the aircraft ? What size is their AOR ? What type of naval forces are they supporting ? Are they tasked to support ground forces ? What type of weather / environment are they operating in ?

Are those requirements the same as ours ? It goes well beyond "well some one else is using it" and well beyond simple performance figures.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Hence why we wont be down low on only 2 engines.

As far as the P-8, the US Navy seems to think that it can operate at low-level. As far as the tactics are for visual ID , i think thats a sunbject for another time and place. just remember that there are issues with UAVs operating due regard (IIRC) and that weather is a huge factor when trying to VID from up high......


Pfffftt...amateurs!  ;D

Real men fly low over the water with only one engine...a really, really small, single engine.
 
[OT warning]

200'????  Holy crap!  Nosebleed country! 

150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!

[/OT]
 
Good2Golf said:
[OT warning]

200'????  Holy crap!  Nosebleed country! 

150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!

[/OT]


Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you do that in a hurricane  when the vis is 0/0
 
WPA said:
Look i am new to the site.

As were we all, once.

WPA said:
I am nit here offend people.

And you haven't yet. You have puzzled some of us, though.

WPA said:
But i do think that a more balance approach to the purchase of equipment needs to be done.

It generally is. Just because you don't see the process doesn't mean that it isn't taking place.

WPA said:
Look how many times procurement project end up a mess because of politics and inflexibility and failure of getting the need information out to Canadians of all people involved in the system.

A recent example would be...?

Politics has interfered too much in the past, but if the government of the day wished to interfere then no military selection system in the world would make any difference.

WPA said:
The people in Canada are already tight fist-ed in defense spending the past has shown this.

Not so much. The current government has spent billions in a very short period with extremely little reaction, other than from the usual sources which have been largely ignored. If the government wishes to spend money on major kit and can justify it, then the public will - as has been shown - accept it.

WPA said:
When you see other nation using Bombardier aircraft and from other complies in the same class  for military jobs

This has already been dealt with.

WPA said:
confuse the people.

You seem to be the only person confused, and the only one trying to push something from a position of admitted ignorance. This does not, to me, make sense.

WPA said:
I just want to know why the P-8 is the only one because someone said so.

There are not a lot of maritime patrol aircraft on the market.

We currently use an essentially American aircraft in this role today, and are used to and have accepted the operational philosophy behind that design, which meets our needs reasonably well. Given that the P8 has been designed to meet the same operational philosophy, it is logical to assume that it, too, would meet our needs. I would assume - and CDN Aviator can either confirm or deny - that we operate in a similar fashion to the US crews of P3s, and the environment on either coast of the northern US is much the same as ours to some distance further north. Unless we have a need or needs radically different from the P8, it stands to reason that, of all of its competitors available, it is the best solution.

Converting another airframe, even if it was large enough and had the lift capacity to carry everything and everybody necessary to do the job that we require it to do, bears some risk and potentially significant cost. One cannot just bolt stuff on or in willy-nilly and expect it to work and be safe. We would quite likely run up the cost to match or exceed that of the P8 in the process.

The "somebodies" who are "saying so" are the people more than familiar with the environment in which whatever aircraft is selected must operate, the missions that it must perform, and aircraft and systems design. This is their job.

WPA said:
I think a test plane would be a good ideas.

If it work fine.

If it does not work fine.

In the end we two plane that can be used to testing different systems and some answers with hard proof for the general public see and understand options out there.

It is nowhere as simple as you think.

If it doesn't work, we're out  multiple millions of dollars with nothing to show for it.

Even if it does work, it will cost a horrendous amount for a very small number of aircraft (small production runs always cost more per unit), and will take years to design, build, and test - all of which have already been done on P8.

WPA said:
I hope this help what i am trying to understand on the whole issue?

I hope that some of what we are saying sinks in.

Essentially, you have been saying, "I admit that I do not know what I am talking about, but I am going to argue anyway, despite what people who operate aircraft in this role and others tell me".





 
Good2Golf said:
150/50 is much spicier...especially on NVG!

Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!

Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.
 
CDN Aviator said:
Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you do that in a hurricane  when the vis is 0/0

Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you fly under a bridge at your "low-level" - in any vis.
 
Loachman said:
I would assume - and CDN Aviator can either confirm or deny - that we operate in a similar fashion to the US crews of P3s,

Very much so. In fact it is so similar that we slide into their operations / exercises without changing anything.
 
Loachman said:
Pffffffttt.......

I would like to see you fly under a bridge at your "low-level" - in any vis.

I dont see too many bridges 1500 miles out to sea, sorry
 
Shhhhhh....dammit  >:(

We can still employ the boat-hunter's airframe......if we convince them there are 5-star hotels in Arghandab  :)
 
Journeyman said:
Shhhhhh....dammit   >:(

We can still employ the boat-hunter's airframe......if we convince them there are 5-star hotels in Arghandab   :)

We are all convinced we can work over there. We have proven many time on MAPLE GUARDIAN and MOJAVE VIPER that it works. The problem is not with the operators.
 
Loachman said:
Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!

Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.

You took me for a ride once in Germany.......didn't you?    ;D
 
George Wallace said:
You took me for a ride once in Germany.......didn't you?    ;D

If it was between 1986 and 1989, quite possibly.

But before milnet staff-type guy CDN Aviator admonishes us about tracks 'n' stuff...
 
Loachman said:
Converting another airframe, even if it was large enough and had the lift capacity to carry everything and everybody necessary to do the job that we require it to do, bears some risk and potentially significant cost. One cannot just bolt stuff on or in willy-nilly and expect it to work and be safe. We would quite likely run up the cost to match or exceed that of the P8 in the process.

To add to this :

You end up with a small number of unique airplanes. Unique airplanes cost more because the entire cost of the production / R&D is spread over a limited number of airframes. You also end up with an aircraft that no one else uses and thus ends up being terribly expensive and complicated to upgrade ( wow....thats the problem with the CP-140s design and with AIMP, go figure). You end up with an aircraft that has widely differing capabilities than those of our major defense partner which complicates joint operations and training.
 
Loachman said:
Holy crap!  Nosebleed country!

Skids clear of ground, and half a rotor diameter from cows.

[slightly more OT sutff]

Loachman, that was in regards to over the Persian Gulf at night...I figured I wouldn't publish an irresponsibly low figure...  ;)
 
hauger said:
Fair enough...one engine.  I would have thought that OEI through shutdown increases the risk of Vmca  due to failure of the other engine running on that side...leaving 2 working engines on one side pulling 2 engines Inop. on the other side.  Granted, it's probably safer than having 2 engines caged and then having a third pack it in while low level.  Can't imagine that being fun either.

So....back to the original question, can the P-8 operate efficiently and usefully at low level, or will visual id become the domain of UAV's directed from a P-8 operating on high?

I have flown the sleek greyhound of death for some 4000 hours, and have another 2 grand on heavy jets. What the heck is OEI?  Is that "One Engine Inoperative" . This is a new one for me. 

Your comments about VMCA show you have a fair amount of knowledge.  Cool, it's nice to read a poster with this kind of educated understanding of our world.  Your statement shows good understanding, but we would be really stupid to operate the airplane with engines shutdown in the way you have stated.  When we shut down one or two engines for fuel savings, there is a damn good reason to do so. Perhaps it is to try and save people in the water or to maintain contact on a bad boy sub.  Or if given the chance, perhaps it will be to keep our really way-cool new camera focused on some Taliban baddies in aid of our tan CADPAT friends.  Whatever the reason, if we do so it is a matter of risk assessment, weather, fuel that can be saved, options if we have an engine failure, terrain, and many other issues.  Shutting down one is a fairly regular thing.  On the other hand, in my many years of flying the CP-140 I have been "on two" about five times.  I think three times were for SAR, and twice were for other operational reaons.  As Cdn Aviator says it's a rare circumstance.

Needless to say, operating with one shut down is simple, easy, and nearly risk free.  That said, we assess risk and make a call as to whether the decision is the right one or not.  When we operate with two engines loitered we fly at an altitiude and airspeed that will allow us the time and space to spark up a loitered engine.  We have a specified minimum altitude that we can operate at, and if heavy we will operate even higher than this regulated level.  We look at the charted rate of descent on one engine, and make a call about our minimum altitide for operations.  Our speed is sufficiently high that we will not reach anywhere near VMCA, provided we don't paint ourselves into a corner by violating our orders while also being stupid.  Also, an engine failing doesn't "pull" unless it also fails to feather or if you are stupid and get really slow.  If you have this double failure (i.e. engine failure with a failure to feather the propellor) you are having a bad day.  This failure to feather scenario is extremely unlikey, but sometimes the "gamble" is worth it some days.

Lastly, who cares about VMCA unless you are trying to avoid an obstacle.  Frankly, if I am above safety height I do not care one iota about my ability to maintain a compass heading.  As long as I get theat other engine going, I am happy.  Not many "controlling obstacles" when flying over the water, are there?

With regard to the P-8 and its suitability for overwater ops, there is a lot to be said about it's unsuitability as compared to the P-3.  There is no better airframe IMHO for low level over water ops than a P-3. It's an airborne tractor; strong, easy to operate, and forgiving.  However, we ain't gonna get a new P-3 since they don't build them anymore. So we are likely be stuck with what the USN will buy, which is likely the best decsion we could make. As a note for WPA, the bombardier product is not a good choice for Canada.  The RAF bought them for their ASTOR programme, and despite being overbudget, the airplane has failed to meet any of their requirements.  IMHO, it would be crap. Anyhow...

That's not to say that the P-8 will be unworkable in the long range patrol role. Firstly, the airplane will not need to be operated the same way.  Many of the sensor ops will be more efficiently done at high altitude, because the sensors will be lightyears ahead of what we know have.  In the ASW role, the only time we will need to go low is to kill something.  The localization to attack criteria will be done entirely at high level.  The anti-surface role will not require any low level work, unless we need to show a "presence". If we are going to shoot something, we will be able to identify a ship by hull number from scores of miles away, and kill him just as far away. 

For SAR, we will need to go low.  The airplane will not be as good in this role as the Aurora.  But hopefully we will do this only rarely, becuase the government will have bought the AF a really good SAR platform for that purpose.  If this doesn't happen, well we will just have to make do, scootin' along at about 220 knots (not 400 as you suggest) with those big hoovers sucking up gas by the tonne.

Bart
 
Bart, i think you have read my mind on most counts. I'm glad someone from the "forward of the shitter" crowd is here to add to the thread. My 1500 hours on the SGOD dont compare to your experience of course.

I'm not convinced however that the new sensors will permit us to work from high in any great amount. The weather conditions i have faced so far in my flying career have more often then not forced us down low even though we have this fancy new camera  ;D

SAR/ISAR will certainly help, as will a modern ESM system but if we are to continue some of the missions we do now, a VID will still be necessary. After all, no one out there put on their AIS that they are fishing illegaly or dumping oil !!

In any event, i look forward to what AIMP block 2 and Block 3 will bring us. I was realy impressed with block 2 when i toured 140106 a few weeks ago. When the SGOD disapears from Canadian skies, i will miss it very much. My first time on one was when i was 7 years old and consider it a dream fullfilled to have been a crewmember on the CP-140. I wish that the US Navy had gone ahead with the P-7 project  :-[
 
Back
Top